Pranav B Prem

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh, has held Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to refund the amount of a defective LED TV and for insisting on issuing refund coupons instead of paying cash. A Bench comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member) directed the company to refund ₹79,980 with 9% interest per annum from 08.04.2023 till realization and pay ₹10,000 as compensation and litigation costs to the complainant, Amrit Pal Singh. The Commission, however, dismissed the complaint against Reliance Retail Ltd., holding that no direct lapse was established against it.

Also Read: Kerala Consumer Forum: Insurance Is A Safety Net, Not A Hurdle — Future Generali Directed To Pay Balance Claim And Compensation For Deficiency In Service

Background

The complainant, Amrit Pal Singh, purchased a Samsung 60” UHD Smart LED TV with Wall Mount and a Boat 2.1 Ch Aavante Bar from Reliance Retail Ltd. on 17 October 2021 for ₹85,970, which came with a two-year warranty. On 1 March 2023, the TV developed display issues, showing visible lines on the screen. Upon lodging a complaint, Samsung’s service team replaced the panel after an 18-day delay. However, the replacement panel was also defective, and the issue persisted.

Despite repeated emails and a legal notice dated 26 March 2023, neither Reliance Retail (OP-1) nor Samsung India Electronics (OP-2) replaced or refunded the defective product. Reliance Retail failed to file its written statement, and its defense was struck off. Samsung admitted the panel defect but contended that its warranty policy only allowed repair or part replacement, not refund. It offered refund coupons worth ₹74,990, redeemable at Samsung-authorized dealers, but the complainant refused, demanding a direct cash refund instead.

Complainant’s Contentions

The complainant argued that Samsung’s repeated failure to provide a functional replacement and refusal to refund the purchase amount constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He submitted that the company had admitted the defect and even offered a refund, which demonstrated that the TV suffered from a major defect. However, forcing a refund through product coupons instead of direct repayment was arbitrary and unacceptable. He sought refund of the entire purchase amount along with interest and compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses.

Opposite Parties’ Response

• Reliance Retail Ltd. (OP-1): The company did not file its reply within the prescribed period under Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and hence its defense was struck off.

• Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2): Samsung admitted that the TV panel was defective and required replacement but asserted that its warranty policy excluded full refund or product replacement. It contended that it had acted within the warranty terms by offering refund coupons equivalent to the product’s value and denied any deficiency in service.

Findings and Observations

After examining the records and hearing both parties, the Commission observed that the fact of defect in the TV was not disputed. It noted that Samsung’s own email dated 08.04.2023 acknowledged the defect and offered refund coupons worth ₹74,990, which confirmed that the product had a major defect. “As per your complaint and subsequent discussion, we are providing you refund of ₹74,990 invoice value in the form of coupon which can be redeemed at any authorized Samsung dealer,” the email stated.

The Bench held that Samsung’s insistence on refunding the amount through coupons instead of direct payment was unfair and unjustified.“When OP-2/manufacturer itself had offered to refund the invoice price in the form of coupons, that itself is sufficient to prove that there was some major defect in the product. However, by refusing to refund the amount in cash and insisting on coupons, OP-2 indulged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice,” the Commission observed. The Commission added that once the defect was admitted, Samsung should have acted promptly to refund the amount and bring closure to the dispute rather than prolonging the matter with restrictive refund conditions.

Holding Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Commission partly allowed the complaint, directing as follows:

1. Samsung (OP-2) shall refund ₹79,980 to the complainant with 9% interest per annum from 08.04.2023 till realization, upon return of the defective LED TV and wall mount.

2. Samsung shall also pay ₹10,000 as compensation and litigation costs.

3. The order shall be complied with within 60 days from receipt of the certified copy.

Also Read: New India Assurance Directed To Reassess Fire Insurance Claim; Baramulla Consumer Commission Awards ₹3 Lakh Compensation For Arbitrary Under-Assessment

The Commission also clarified that no deficiency was established against Reliance Retail Ltd., and therefore, the complaint against it was dismissed.

Cause Title: Amrit Pal Singh vs. Reliance Retail Ltd. & Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Case No: DC/AB1/44/CC/237/2023

Coram: Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President), B.M. Sharma (Member)